UTR is definitely superior. Though I do think the score line can say alot about your ability. But it can also be very misleading if you have a great/horrible day on the court.
The premise is that you should play many matches though. So having bad days is part of your overall level. If they are few and far between they won't make a big difference. But if they happen often then it will impact your score. It seems reasonable to me
I’m 46 almost 47. I was a ranked junior, played JC, recruited to a low level D1, played Satellites/futures and a few challengers. I stopped playing for 15 years. I’ve returned to playing, after two back surgeries, third one in the mix. My knees are shot and I can’t run, my self rating was a 5.0, and after guidance re-evaluated and now a 4.5 I haven’t won a league match in two years…. The system won’t take into account time.
Agree 💯. Perhaps there could be a letter modifier after the rating. An NTRP 4.5 A means that you have played at least 4 rated matches (in 4.5+ category) in the past 12 months. NTRP 4.5 B would mean you have played between 1 and 3 rated matches in the past 12 months. NTRP 4.5 C would mean no rated matches played or rating is provisional. Agree with Mark that NRTP ratings should be live and have more precision within each ratings group. Also agree that there should be separate singles and doubles ratings. Given these, Mark's ratings would perhaps be 4.9 A for singles and 4.0 C for doubles. This is a level of precision that the average tennis player can handle. Also, I believe this would stimulate discussion and perhaps promote interest in league play. I think the current system can be tweaked without having to throw away core concepts. No system is perfect. I favor modifying the one that we have here in the US. Every recreational player I talk is accustomed to the NTRP. Adopting an entirely new system would probably be counterproductive and further cement the erosion of tennis in America.
Interesting. In the 70’s and 80’s I played high school and college tennis, entered “Malta” (Mid Atlantic Lawn Tennis Associtation) USTA events and could get into pro-ams by playing qualifying rounds or events. I could enter practically any open tournament, according to my age, that I wanted. I won some matches and also got my ass beat by kids like Danny Goldie that went on to play the tour. Rankings were given based on wins, strength of the field and that kind of thing. I thought tennis for several years but I had some back problems in my mid 20’s and played very little after that. Now, at the age of 59, I have started hitting again with the goal of playing in a some 60+ USTA events and becoming competitive again. The USTA self ranking system indicates I’m a 3.5 and could appeal up to a 4.0 but I’m hopeful I can play to level 5 again within a couple of years and, like I said, enter and compete with better players. My motivation for tennis is playing tournaments again, with the opportunity of playing and testing myself against the best players in the region but it seems the USTA wants to put everyone in boxes. I don’t think that’s the best way to test yourself, learn and improve.
I’ve been playing USTA and captaining USTA teams for 10 years now. A big issue that you did not mention in your video is how people lose on purpose a.k.a. “Sandbaggers” and nothing is being done about it. I know guys for years who only lose to make it to sectionals and nationals just so they can win. Couldn’t agree with you more.
In regards to UTR, I definitely think scoreline matters. The UTR algorithm is more nuanced than you made it out to be, actually predicting scores down to the game level based on past results. I think that getting credit for a close match, if past results indicate the match should be a anything less, is productive and fair because then players are incentivized more to play to develop rather than just play to win. When players are rewarded in a tangible way for more than just winning that can only be a good thing. And at least in SoCal, the issue of players not playing tournaments for fear of negatively impacting their UTR is actually a very real one. I have a lot of friends who play high level junior tennis (UTR 10-12) and they have made it clear that players who used to show up at every tournament are more selective now, choosing those they think they are more likely to win, as they want their UTR’s to stay high to impress for college recruitment. That being said, I don’t think that is a huge issue for recreational adult play, unless your ego is so massive you care more about a number than playing tennis.
That's if you're trying to calculate UTR off a single match. But when you have enough matches, the exact number of games won (as opposed to sets won & lost) doesn't make a big difference to accuracy & could actually make it less accurate. In tennis, you can lose more games & still win more sets & win the match, so number of sets won & lost should override the number of games won or lost, at least for the winner, at least in such cases. In fact, whichever will have a more positive effect on UTR or less negative effect (sets or games) should be used. That way, there is less pressure to win X number of games just to prevent a drop in UTR, as you can just settle for winning or losing the expected number of sets if you prefer. Another change I'd suggest is that instead of being the last 30 matches within 12 months, it should be the 10 most recent matches on hard court within months + the 10 most recent matches on clay within 12 months + the 10 most recent matches on grass (excluding expected wins) in the last 12 months, that way player's ratings won't jump around so much just from the changing of surfaces.
@@edwardstilwell9252 I know a friend of mine 4.5 he quit USTA long time ago and just hit locally for fun and exercise because people can lie. A guy claimed he was 4.0 but reality was he’s only 2.0 … my friend didn’t like that… LOL. I just joined a league for a captain asked me but I don’t think I’ll renew my membership. Won’t give them my money.
While I agree that a win is the ultimate judge, I think that there should be room in the process for score consideration. There is a dramatic difference between a 6-0, 6-0 victory and a 7-6, 7-6 victory as you welll know. It shouldn't be a large portion of the rating....but it should be present. As far as the USTA goes, it would be great if they actually pretended to give a shit about making their stuff better. The NTRP is shit and everyone knows it.
"There is a dramatic difference between a 6-0, 6-0 victory and a 7-6, 7-6 victory as you well know" There can be, but sometimes the difference is just that the guy who wins 6-0 is meaner, and the guy who wins 6-3 6-4 against similar players is being a nice guy, taking it easy, and having some fun with some longer rallies. And in tennis, you can lose more games & still win more sets & win the match, so number of sets won & lost should override the number of games won or lost, at least for the winner, at least in such cases. In fact, whichever will have a more positive effect on UTR or less negative effect (sets or games) should be used. That way, there is less pressure to win X number of games just to prevent a drop in UTR, as you can just settle for winning or losing the expected number of sets if you prefer. Another change I'd suggest is that instead of being the last 30 matches within 12 months, it should be the 10 most recent matches on hard court within months + the 10 most recent matches on clay within 12 months + the 10 most recent matches on grass (excluding expected wins) in the last 12 months, that way player's ratings won't jump around so much just from the changing of surfaces.
I think your analysis is spot on. From the ET interview, I thought it was very interesting that the USTA seems to look at the ratings as kind of a byproduct of their leagues, like the focus is to make compelling league play and the ratings help them do that, but they're not really intended to stand on their own as indicative as much. This obviously isn't how they're used in the real world or even how they're marketed on the USTA site, but it does provide some context as to why they're so bad as standalone skill ratings. I want to love UTR, because it's the closest thing we have to chess Elo, but as you pointed out the match score affects the rating change which makes it not a true Elo score. Such a foolish choice makes it nearly as bad as NTRP in my eyes.
Def would be interested in your play your court thoughts! Our bros (Scott and Nate) in our tennis group down here do that. Keep your review vid unfiltered too tho! 💪🏽
Nice video. Played usta 4.0 in new england and 2/4 players i played we’re below 4.0. Played 2 utr 6 and up and was grouped similar ratings +\- 1.5 and all of my matches were very competitive. I like utr better bc i definitely played players that were at my level or slightly better. Thanks for video
I played usta league and tournaments from 1991 to 1996. Completely agree with you about it. Im retired from high tech, you nailed it about their website. I would consider ot bad for 2005
i'm tired of people ragging on Donald Young. He made a nice career for himself, and like Venus and Naomi Osaka would point out, he's better than 99% of us out there!
I agree with Mark. Scoreline is not important. What if: - You force yourself to play eventhough you're still injured. And won 7-6 again ntrp 3.0. - You're clowning around against weak opponent. Won 7-6. - Not in the mood. But still won with slim margin. Too many factors to consider about the scoreline.
Great subject and well covered. I would disagree that a 6-0,6-0 result is the same as a 7-6, 7-6 result. In a one off tourney those results are in fact identical, but not the way the UTR system broadly interprets results for the far more precise output number. When travel was a thing, i happened to play a competitive player from Finland, we were at 6-6 in games before our court time expired. I later checked his UTR, we were within a .1 UTR rating from each other. i became quite impressed with the system. Keep up the great work Mark.
@@donkeybro6368 true but it's normal because the serves is part of the game. If you are an amazing returner, you will be able to break more Ave still win. Of course there's more Zverev vthan shwartzman but each skill matter
@@pzh1 Yes I agree that scores or key stats should matter since they would reflect how consistent / hard to beat you are. I was just explaining the logic behind.
Regardless of which system is used, there are only a few tournaments per year around here. If I wanted to play a tournament per month, I have to be willing to go over 100 miles each way. At 100 mile limit, there are literally 2 tournaments (May and July) in this area this year.
Few things...first, you couldn't be more right about the USTA Tennis Link site. It is a joke. I wonder how much money they have spent to come up with that! Second, the biggest issue I've found with NTRP is that the comparisons between regions is terrible. The most obvious thing I've seen is how we've had a few teams from the OKC area qualify for 4.0 Nationals, we are never competitive, and yet most of the team gets moved up to 4.5. If the very best 4.0 players in OKC have no chance at Nationals, why are we bumped up? It makes zero sense. Finally, the self rating is horrible. You pretty much nailed this.
Just joined a UTR flex league in my area, not bad for $35. 5 matches over he span of 4 weeks for the price of a USTA tourney entry fee. UTR isn’t as popular in my area though so not as many players there typically are compared to the USTA events.
I don't think I personally know anyone with a UTR. At least, nobody has ever mentioned it, but the majority of my tennis buddies have an NTPR for league play. UTR has not gained much traction in my area, and I have no idea how to go about getting rated.
@@rbraxley anyone who has USTA (NTRP) results automatically has a UTR rating regardless if they have “claimed” their UTR profile or not. You can get a UTR by playing either USTA or UTR results or even import results from unofficial ladder matches if both you and the opponent agree to.
very interesting, i just signed up for my first UTR league locally. wasn't even aware of how these systems differ. Interested to see PYC review since it seems to be getting more popular given their ads and content
The USTA has recently announced that they are looking into the WTN rating system for juniors which is basically a copy of the UTR system. The only downside for the UTR system in the junior level is that there is no mechanism for sanctioning cheaters or inappropriate behavior. Overall though, the UTR is a superior system.
Unfortunately, there really is no way to account for cheaters at any level that does not have at least a chair umpire on court at all times. At all levels except for Pro and top college, matches go by the honor system thus making unfairness such as bad line calls undetectable by any rating system.
Data nerds love to incorporate as much data as possible so I see why they include the scoreline, there's a ranking system in volleyball that does that too. However I can see it being misleading. Just because you pushed John Isner or Ivo Karlovic to a tie-break doesn't mean you had any chance of beating them. But you've convinced me, I think I'm going to sign up for UTR.
2 points: A) UTR needs to find a way to become more user friendly for less than $99/year. About the ONLY thing you can see about you, your friends or opponents is YOUR own 3 digit UTR. Can only see other players single digit UTR number, not ratings history, past results, 3 digit rating. UTR needs to seek corporate sponsorship and/or advertisements. Imagine if Twitter, Instagram or Facebook 10 years ago had an AWESOME product that people needed and craved around the world, but charged $99/year to get started? You would still never heard of them! Currently only ONE person in the Philippines has even heard of UTR, NOBODY uses it. $99 is like a couple of months rent!!!! B) Final score of he match gives some insight into the strength of both players, getting a win matters more, BOTH are used with UTR. What is worthy of arguing is whether UTR weighs score too heavily. I am far from convinced it does. I would have to understand their algorithm more to form a strong opinion. PS: UTR PLEASE let players use your system for FREE, see the value and put the nail in the NTRP coffin!!!!
Thank you, Mark! I very much agree that the USTA website is embarrassing and hard to navigate in almost all respects. The NTRP system is terrible as well. Come on, USTA, make it easy for players to schedule matches with others at any venue and record results that affect their ratings immediately. - John F., Chandler Tennis Meetup Organizer
For me, the amount of "weight" given to the scoreline is ridiculous. If I am playing a tournament and draw an easy opponent, I am going to try to manage my energy output in order to comfortably win the match whilst conserving stamina. I am not going balls-to-wall to crush someone love & love, only to be more tired for my next match that starts in one hour.
If you are better enough to win love and love then you shouldn't need to go balls to the wall to win. That is you being better enough that they cant even win one in six service games when they are getting lucky. I agree that it is silly to have such a large emphasis on the scoreline because at the end of the day it overly favors a style of play that is actually detrimental to development (in my opinion), but everyone has had those matches where you are just like "how did I end up on the court with this guy" and having the system over represent results like that causes a faster seperation of players into their "correct" level.
@@peterranney9488 I definitely agree with the first half of your comment. Out of curiosity, what style are you referring to that's "detrimental to development"?
@@johnnybgood1169 Over emphasis on serve and return of serve leads to major plateaus in development where far fewer of your matches will be competitive so it will be much harder to get the competitive tennis necessary to improve mentally. It also de-emphasizes mental toughness and fitness which you need in proportion to point length. It is always really frustrating when I play with people who have over-emphasized that part of their game and the match is just never competitive one way or the other.
Good video, and agree with the most part, except the score line: i am in the tennis industry for over 40 years, come from France, brought Naomi Osaka one of the best junior in the world. I do think as a coach and former player than loosing 0/6-0/6 is not the same than 5/7-5/7 and you do deserve some credit! It shows on the second exemple the match and level was pretty close match! In France we have this system for 80 years!! LOL But you have to keep your ranking for 12 months, and the algorithm is calculate with some prediction, depending on your opponents values (if they rise or will gogo down)
Love the passion in the vid bro! USTA is 💩 crazy I remember back in the early 2000s working with Dave Howell at a club down here in the 757 when he was just starting to develop the UTR system. I never imagined it’d get this global, but props to Dave on it!
I agree with many of your comments, but I disagree with your disbelief that the expected result for an NTRP 3.5 at 3.49 vs 3.00 would be a double bagel. NTRP 3.5 people I know who won too much then got bumped up to 4.0 regularly get thrashed even by average players in the new bucket (i.e., players who are probably in the 3.75 range), and they definitely eat a lot of bagels and breadsticks against the better 4.0s (i.e., ones who are closer to 3.99). This anecdotal evidence is not as extreme as the hypothetical scenario of a 3.49 vs a 3.00, so a double bagel sounds like a good estimate to me for that match result. This talent gap issue can probably be explained in large part by the asymmetry of the bucket's bell curve at the high end -- the tail at the high end is full of players who have appealed to get their ratings pushed back down to the lower bucket specifically because they want to be able to play in the lowest possible league to create teams that will win their USTA regional, sectional, etc playoffs. Perhaps one of the main reasons the USTA won't publish the YY portion of our internal X.YY rating is that we'd see there are a bunch of players above 3.49 who are currently assigned to the NTRP 3.5 bucket. If my suspicion is true, then USTA's Heather Hawkes' statement about double bagels is even more believable than my original premise if the top of the NTRP 3.5 bucket is actually above 3.49, and might be pitting say a 3.65 player against a 3.00. One sub-topic that you intentionally or unintentionally overlooked is the ratings info provided at tennisrecord.com (I believe they were briefly discussed in Essential Tennis' interview with Heather Hawkes). Tennis Record attempts to apply what they believe is USTA's algorithm to matches, then to report the per-match dynamic rating like UTR does. FWIW, Tennis Record consistently rates me above 3.00 overall and per match despite USTA recently downgrading my self-rated 3.5 to 3.0 (i.e., Tennis Record says I'm a 3.20 playing as an NTRP 3.0). UTR says I'm a 5.17 based upon the same match results. Also FWIW, I self-rated as a 3.5 because I mostly play against 3.5's and 4.0s, and I can generally hold my own against all but those 3.5 players who just got bumped to 4.0 in the USTA year-end ratings update. I'd be interested in an addendum that adds your thoughts on tennisrecord.com. It might actually provide the best of all worlds in that we get UTR-like dynamic ratings to .01 granularity, but we can continue to use the USTA league infrastructure. P.S. All of my official ratings info is based upon mixed doubles results, whereas my comments about playing against 3.5-4.0 players is mostly singles. I'm a much better singles than doubles player, plus I'm guessing that the algorithms become less accurate when trying to factor in the relative contributions of each player in a doubles team.
1. UTR You can't play who want you have to be same ranked to your opponent 2. In UTR why is there only one set to play for each match 3. UTR if your opponent doesn't show up you automatically win that match? 4.What do you mean the rating (UTR) favors regular players? 5. But doesn't your rating decrease when you lose to a lower ranking player or stays the same if he or she has equal ranking and you win?
Starting this video now but right off the bat, I suspect that as someone over 20 years out of high school, your critiques mostly won't apply to me, and while an imperfect system, the ntrp likely hasn't failed me as an adult 3.5. let's see if I'm right!
Yeah, I think after watching the video, I see where it lets people down who are trying to get into competitive league play and finding that's it's all compressed into a super 4.0 and a super duper 4.5 league.
Good video but I liked the rating clinics. I got a very accurate rating this way when I started and the raters wee not fat and they did a good job. UTR seems to be a better system but has its flaws as well. For example, high rated juniors not playing back draws to protect their UTR rating. The 10cap system looks interesting.
In tennis, you can lose more games & still win more sets & win the match, so number of sets won & lost should override the number of games won or lost, at least for the winner, at least in such cases. In fact, whichever will have a more positive effect on UTR or less negative effect (sets or games) should be used. That way, there is less pressure to win X number of games just to prevent a drop in UTR, as you can just settle for winning or losing the expected number of sets if you prefer. Another change I'd suggest is that instead of being the last 30 matches within 12 months, it should be the 10 most recent matches on hard court within months + the 10 most recent matches on clay within 12 months + the 10 most recent matches on grass (excluding expected wins) in the last 12 months, that way player's ratings won't jump around so much just from the changing of surfaces.
Great analysis and appreciate the disgust for the NTRP system! On several occasions, I have been paired with a singles specialist for a doubles match who had no business playing doubles at that rating. When this happens, I realize I may be in for a long day. Also, does the NTRP system place a higher value to actual vs. expected score or winning vs. losing? Athletes train to improve and prepare themselves to perform and win, not prepare to beat the expectations. I personally would prefer to have a teammate that can win consistently vs. a player who hammers weak opposition or wins less bad against stronger players.
Thats why I made the comment about a win is a win, no matter if its 6-0,6-0 or 7-5, 6-7, 7-6. I have no idea of the NTRP system places a higher value for expectations vs reality.
Your preaching to the choir good sir!! I don't know anything about the UTR ratings, but I understand that an even more dismal downer about NTRP is that we are constantly told that only spring leagues apply to your rating. So Tankers will throw matches in the Spring and play normal throughout the rest of the season. If rankings/ratings were posted immediately it will create transparency. There will be no throwing matches because you will immediately be dropped in the rankings as to who you really are as a player. I personally dropped my USTA membership for these reasons and others. I joined a local club and get all the tennis I really need. USTA is raking in the dough while sticking it to the members. I hear others complain all the time, but they are unwilling to take a stance which seems to be the cultural norm or the USA at this time. On another note, yes, their website SUCKS!! Most un-intuitive piece of garbage out there. How do you find anything you are looking for unless you were the right handed, left brain nitwit who designed the website. Take a que from apple and how easy it is to navigate through menus on an iphone, it will lend you credibility and ease of use for your customer base. nuff said.. signed 52 yr old 4.0 rated NTRP who plays 4.5 level doubles.
Hey man where are you located? I could not agree with you more. I am the same age as you and played numerous USTA junior tournaments for years. Four year Kalamazoo player. One thing that I think is abysmal that the USTA has in place with there junior tournaments is the scoring format This 10 pt tiebreak thing for the third set is making the United States overall weaker as a whole for our nations tennis. When I played we played full third sets. Now you literally have to play in the main draw of a level one supranational to play a full third set in United States national junior tennis. When I was 9 years old I was playing full third sets in local junior open tournaments in my first ever tournament. Now juniors might play there entire career and never play a full third set in there life. This is the most ridiculous, absurd thing that is an embarrassment to our nation. It makes it so if you want to be a professional the only way you can do it is play the ITF tour and travel the world. Some people choose to go to public school and can only do the USTA national Junior Circuit and it is those kids that I feel for because the USTA is not doing them shit. 10pt tiebreaks just make matches more of a crapshoot and change the feeling of the whole match entirely from the first point.
Here is my opinion on this after watching the video. Yes both systems have issues, but I agree with the USTA reason on why they purposely keep NTRP vague. This encourages more play. Like other have said, there are players who avoid playing certain matches solely due to the other person UTR. UTR might be too good at rating people so you can pretty much tell who will win without even playing the match. The other issue with UTR is if you got someone who only plays player lower than them. This might be because they don't travel or participate in high level tournaments. Base on UTR the highest they can obtain is the highest opponent they beat with a valid UTR rating. Again this makes sense, but they should be ranked much higher. Again this is the edge cases, but it can happen. Finally on your comment about UTR should us win vs set score, it is more data for them to accurately gauge how they will perform. Yes it might bias big servers or specific technique such as serve volley or certain surfaces. Like you said, it is meant to be universal, applying to many surfaces and game play type. But I do agree there are room for improvement such as surface type win and biasing techniques and such, but then you would need a lot more data and maybe even something to observe and determine the play technique used to win. That system would be on a whole new level.
I’m not a fan of the NTRP. I had a few good years around 2004 to 2010 and found myself stuck at 5.0. I went 2-15 in 2012 (2-5 league play) and my appeal was denied. I had to quit playing for 7 years, then self rated according to the player guidelines as 4.5. That was rejected and they put me at 5.0. Finally came back down for 2020 season. I’m almost 48 years old. Moral of the story, play hard, train hard, and you are rewarded with a shrinking field of competitors and you have to quit to re-join your buddies.
But what do you really think, Mark? Nice analysis, and I agree, NTRP is in need of a major overhaul. It may have been useful in 1978, but not so much any more. ALTA manages to run a very successful league system that has nothing to do with NTRP, so while NTRP does help with league structure, it's clearly not the only approach. Maybe the USTA just needs to bite the bullet and adapt UTR as the system.
Man, every since I started tennis more seriously, I was disappointed of the USTA website and their ratings. I truly believe that they should listen to this very informative video and make some changes. You are not the only one I have talked about this. USTA don’t be blockbuster!!!!! Wake upppppp!!!
In the Dutch system, only the win and loss counts, the score doesn't. I can see my rating up to 3 decimals and the rating goes from 9 to 1 (lowest to highest 1). My rating is updated after a playing day or at the end of a tournament. I can play against higher level players as well as lower rated players. In tournaments the organizers can however limit this and put you in a different league. If they do so they do have a legitimate reason for it and generally communicate with the player about it. The rating system is fairly easy. If you win a match you get a match result that is your opponents current rating including decimals minus 1 and this counts only if that result is higher than yours. If you lose the opponents rating +1. Your own rating is the average of your last 7 matches results rolling No system is perfect
fucking love UTR. So sad they dont have it in Japan since I moved here. I even emailed UTR asking if they have it here and they said no but they'd like to 😞
USTA website is horrible. They should be embarrass. No wonder, American tennis is losing ground in many aspects. USTA have gotten fat and lazy. I agreed with everything you said about USTA.
So the whole system if that’s what you want to call it is simply horrible but maybe I can shed some light to this what is the a conversion table between USTA and UTR?
I played chess tournaments in the 1970's. About 1974, in Missouri, some tournament organizers asked players if they wanted trophies or cash. We all said, give us the money.
Mark, wait until you turn 40, you won’t say the USTA league play is good. They just cut the singles line from 2 to 1 (40+ league). People in my team were already fighting to get a chance to play singles for the team when there were 2. This totally sucks! Not sure the logic behind this. Less people required to form a team -> More teams -> more money???
Utr is vastly better. Unlike the vastly inaccurate ntrp rating. We all know that 3.0 player is truly 4.0 or worse destroying people on the court. Just finished a utr flex league. It was fun and competitive. My opponents were truly fair at the stated level
I recently signed up for UTR to see what's all this about. I am not going to talk about their shitty website and other issues. I see USTA as a money grabbing scheme. They don't do a squat to improve the game in US. That said, here is my take only their rating system. UTR is fine. It is all about current form because it keeps changing every match. A 4.0 NTRP player ranked 6.0 or 7.0 in UTR can come down significantly if few results don't go their way. Doesn't mean 4.0 player all of a sudden becomes a 3.5. I prefer NTRP's rating to assess a player overall. It's much more stable. In sports, we have a saying, "Class is permanent than form". NTRP is about class. UTR is abt form. Ultimately I don't see either of them doing anything to improve tennis in US. They don't care to improve court availability for aspiring professionals or recreational players. It's no wonder american tennis is suffering big time.
Hey Mark! I've only been playing a little over 2 yrs (including a long Covid break.), so I just came into this relatively recently with no bias or old preconceived ideas/opinions. I got sucked into this debate when my 12yo son 1st started playing, and my "fresh set of eyes" came to the same conclusion you did - the comparison really isn't close! I will disagree with you on 1 point though: I do believe the score line matters in this context. Primarily since we can't play ALL UTR players head-to-head. If you were to beat me 6-0, 6-0, I do think that should be treated differently than beating Ian or Angry Old Man 6-0. 6-0.
Hi, so this is probably a dumb question, but can I play in USTA tournaments only for college recruitment? Like does my USTA rating affect my UTR rating? Thank you!
I think the NTRP is definitely lacking with rating new players but there is really not a better way as I can see. Sure, you can go out and "Play matches" but you could play someone and get crushed in 30 minutes. Thats not fun for either person. At least NTRP gives you a base to go off of by answering the questions and then bumps you up or down based off of your results. I also think the score line does matter. If you lose all of your matches 6-7 6-7, you deserve to stay at that level. If you lose all of your matches 0 and 0 you should be bumped down. So winning is not the only thing that matters. Their website is actually atrocious and I feel is worse than their previous site. Its complicated to navigate and just is not user friendly. Another problem with NTRP is, I am getting this from Ians interview with the NTRP representative, is that they hire non-tennis people to be representatives in the area. I mean how is she supposed to give insight to the higher ups about improving NTRP. After she said she doesn't have a tennis background, everything she defended or talked about lost value. Of course, this is just my opinion. Feedback for your video - I think you should have said you are affiliated with UTR at the beginning of the video and not the end. But, at least you disclosed that. With all of that being said, still an interesting video and seeing your take on it. Interested to see you review play your court. I am not familiar with Rally tennis even though I see ads for it.
I'm a fan of UTR in theory. Unfortunately, many players around my area show up with a rating of 2. Predictions and therefore corrections (the basis of UTR) are subsequently crap. They do try to improve that with a "confidence" -- hopefully factored into the equations somewhere -- but it doesn't seem to work well in my opinion.
Bottom line: we - the tennis community- deserve a system that accurately reflects the demonstrated ability of every player. The system should be transparent and easy to understand (what are the variables inherent to the rating, and how are they weighted?). The system also needs to be dynamic to eliminate any latency-driven bias (up or down). #KeepTheConversationGoing
What drives me crazy about the USTA's website is that there are tournaments being held every month that I would love to take part in and yet they're never posted on the USTA's website. I don't play league tennis so I can't comment about the structuring of the leagues. But I REALLY wish they would put up the non-sanctioned tournaments on their website. I know of atleast 3 non-sanctioned events (in my state alone) that aren't included on the USTA's website.
I’ve got Like no rating bc I’m out of shape and don’t play tournaments but I can beat 5.0 players in my area so I’m hoping to get in shape and improve quickly
In terms of calculating a players actual level, UTR is superior without a doubt and is honestly just a successor to NTRP. I don't really think I have met anyone that actually thinks NTRP is better than UTR in that sense because that would be insane. The gender neutrality in UTR is not accurate. For example, an 11 UTR girl is very different from an 11 UTR male. It is very difficult at that level to determine what the accurate UTR of a girl is because any girl thats above a 9 UTR is essentially never playing a guy that is 9 UTR or above in tournaments. There are co-ed tournaments but those are usually for lower levels (like 7 UTR or below), so the calculation becomes inaccurate at higher levels. An 11/12 UTR guy would absolutely murder an 11/12 UTR girl. Regarding your scoreline comment, I think you saying the scoreline doesn't matter is a little silly tbh. 7-6 7-6 is very different from 6-0 6-0 and its naive to not acknowledge that. Perhaps there should be more weight given to wins and losses rather than just counting the games, but the score is definitely relevant and adds to the predictive accuracy of the UTR system. If you took that factor away and only factored in wins/losses, the predictive accuracy of UTR would go down drastically. This counting games factor also encourages players to try on every point. I also don't really understand your point about favoring big servers.. If you have a big serve and win games on your serve, then you would be more likely to win games/sets/matches obviously, the serve is a pretty important shot in tennis. With that logic, It also favors good returners, players with good forehands, etc.. as it should... so what's your point? I also disagree about it "favoring regular players". Your UTR rating only becomes more accurate when you have played more matches. There are just as many scenarios in which it would actually favor the non-regular player. For example, if you play 1 match against a 13 UTR and win 1 game, your estimated UTR would be like an 11 even though you might actually be a 9 UTR. In that scenario, it would be "favoring" the player that played only 1 match. The same could go the other way around.
I think any cap on ratings is a mistake. It will mean everyone’s rating must be reshuffled depending on how good the best player is. I also have heard the utr seems to shift players ratings around with no apparent reason. There may be reasons but the system is not transparent enough for players to know why this happens. This lack of transparency means the system lacks credibility. Also games only counting for one year is awfully short. Their k factor is geared toward young players not adults. I suspect ntrp dynamic rating are better at predicting results for adults. Chess has some excellent rating systems. The reason utr consider how many games you win and not just the match result is because it is more data. More data often means better predictions. I would love to hear what you think of play my courts system. I live in central illinois and it is hard to find utr or ntrp rated match play. But I can find play your court matches. I just don’t know much about their rating system.
Ratings should be based on did you win or did you lose plus the rating of your opponent. When I played chess tournaments in the 1970's, I could accurately calculate my new ELO rating after a tournament using simple arithmetic. Later on, playing tennis, my rating was bumped from 4.0 to 4.5. I became rated 4.0 at age 40, after my first tournament as a self rated 3.5. I was typically reaching the 3rd round in 4.0 events. Not exactly destroying the competition. I had no idea why I became a 4.5 player. After being moved up, I foolishly played 4.5 events for 5 years, never beating even one 4.5 rated opponent. I beat a couple 4.0 players playing up. How could I maintain a 4.5 rating for 5 years without beating even one 4.5 player? I had earlier been a very active player. I had been rated 4.0 at age 42. It took until age 47 for me to return to a 4.0 rating. By that time, I was no longer interested in tournament play. I was canceled.
In all honesty, I would LOVE to sit down with someone that knows this system (if that someone even exists) to explain what happened to you logically. I am sorry that this happened to you.
I think she’s totally right about showing the 1/100ths…it would create a storm of backlash for them with people whining about the smallest differences over a .5 rating. Honestly man, I think your just trying to produce content way too hard and creating these hit piece videos on everything. ET has such a good presence and following because Ian is professional. Hope things go well for you in the YT game but I’d encourage you to take another approach.
I agree with you that ET's style will likely have a bigger audience, but I respectfully disagree about the "trying too hard" comments. Ian is non-confrontational and positive, and Mark is more direct and opinionated. Both have their merits and attract different crowds. When I want to compare something (e.g. UTRP vs UTR in this case), I like these types of opinion videos, and enjoy watching counter opinions too.
I thought you have to pay for the subscription in order to see the decimal point ranking? I tried to look at rankings right now but could only see it rounded.
I'd like to support UTR more but when I look at levels sometimes they don't make sense to me. I've played folks who live 4 hours away from me and they are UTR 2-3 points better than me but in reality I was at their level but NTRP wise we are the same. In my home town, UTR and NTRP line up better. So I'm confused.
UTR is not superior for league play based on teams. UTR does not solve any problems for team based league play. Even Ian's issue was predicated on joining a league play team. UTR does not promote getting the highest rating possible in team based league play. Self rating and sandbagging will be a problem with either NTRP or UTR. No matter what system you use there has to be buckets of level and stable cohesive teams. It seems to me that league play is a top priority. I would guess that it involves the most players and brings in the most money. I'll agree that UTR is good for individuals in competitions or tournaments. I'll agree that the USTA website is garbage...although that really has nothing directly to do with NTRP vs UTR.. I think the score of any individual match is a faulty way to judge a dynamic rating. You may be able to produce an algorithm that could identify trends in aggregate score data. However, and individual match score is a guessing game.
So as a regional UTR tournament representative, do you feel like your opinions here reflect any bias? Also, I disagree with your statement that competitiveness in match scoring should not factor into the UTR algorithm. If I beat you 10 times in a row 6-0, 6-0 vs 10 times in a row 7-6, 6-7, 10-8 (ST), it's far more likely that our UTR"s should be nearly identical in the second scenario than the first.
By nature I am biased because I am an independent contractor with UTR. As for the scoring... In my opinion a win is a win (or lose), no matter how close a match is.
@@MarkSansait Yes, I know. You mentioned that in the video. I'm not sure you looked at the example I gave. If I beat you 10 times in a row 6-0, 6-0, I am very likely a higher UTR by at least 1 full level. If I beat you 10 times in a row 7-6, 6-7, 10-8 (Su.T), while I should still be a higher UTR than you, the difference falls within the "competitive threshold", and should be only fractionally higher. Believe me, college coaches want to know if a rounded UTR 10 is closer to a 10.5 than a 9.5.
@@BullyGarfield. Bias lessens the value of someone's opinion in the area where the bias exists. (Even though when it comes to this topic, I also believe UTR is a superior rating system/algorithm.)
Also sadly related to the USTA rating, there a BUNCH of players down here that put way too much value in their or their opponent’s NTRP… and go into matches shaking in their boots bc someone is a WHOLE 0.01 points higher than him… smh
@@MarkSansait no problem! Utr is certainly the future. Especially for those who play internationally like you said so I can’t agree more that ntrp is antiquated.
To all of you, "SIZE of victory" measuring contest bro's out there... As of this post, Nadal's UTR is higher than Djokovic's. I surmise that this has to do with the margin(SIZE) of victories of recent matches. Nadal had won his matches in straight sets, where Djokovic had two recent 5 set victories. Be honest with yourself, right now on grass, clay, or hard court, is Nadal better than Djokovic.
USTA league can feel like an extension of the youth sports money grab, but more focused. I support the overall USTA mission, love tennis, and can afford regular play, so I’m the demographic in play. Match fees guarantee clubs income and there are enough people who will willingly pay to travel and play in a “national championship,” for some non-existent bragging rights. If you want to play with your friends, have fun, and compete, great, do it. If you want to travel, get your group together and take a tennis vacation.
Because you have to build your UTR over time. It takes playing a lot of matches to get a number that reflects your actual level. Remember, UTR is intended for competitive players, specifically at the high junior level, who play just about 2-3 competitive tournament matches per week.
UTR is definitely superior. Though I do think the score line can say alot about your ability. But it can also be very misleading if you have a great/horrible day on the court.
I completely agree with your statement. From my experience, UTR is definitely better than the NTRP system when predicting the outcomes of matches.
The premise is that you should play many matches though. So having bad days is part of your overall level. If they are few and far between they won't make a big difference. But if they happen often then it will impact your score. It seems reasonable to me
I’m 46 almost 47. I was a ranked junior, played JC, recruited to a low level D1, played Satellites/futures and a few challengers. I stopped playing for 15 years. I’ve returned to playing, after two back surgeries, third one in the mix. My knees are shot and I can’t run, my self rating was a 5.0, and after guidance re-evaluated and now a 4.5 I haven’t won a league match in two years…. The system won’t take into account time.
Agree 💯. Perhaps there could be a letter modifier after the rating. An NTRP 4.5 A means that you have played at least 4 rated matches (in 4.5+ category) in the past 12 months. NTRP 4.5 B would mean you have played between 1 and 3 rated matches in the past 12 months. NTRP 4.5 C would mean no rated matches played or rating is provisional.
Agree with Mark that NRTP ratings should be live and have more precision within each ratings group. Also agree that there should be separate singles and doubles ratings. Given these, Mark's ratings would perhaps be 4.9 A for singles and 4.0 C for doubles. This is a level of precision that the average tennis player can handle. Also, I believe this would stimulate discussion and perhaps promote interest in league play. I think the current system can be tweaked without having to throw away core concepts.
No system is perfect. I favor modifying the one that we have here in the US. Every recreational player I talk is accustomed to the NTRP. Adopting an entirely new system would probably be counterproductive and further cement the erosion of tennis in America.
Interesting. In the 70’s and 80’s I played high school and college tennis, entered “Malta” (Mid Atlantic Lawn Tennis Associtation) USTA events and could get into pro-ams by playing qualifying rounds or events. I could enter practically any open tournament, according to my age, that I wanted. I won some matches and also got my ass beat by kids like Danny Goldie that went on to play the tour. Rankings were given based on wins, strength of the field and that kind of thing. I thought tennis for several years but I had some back problems in my mid 20’s and played very little after that. Now, at the age of 59, I have started hitting again with the goal of playing in a some 60+ USTA events and becoming competitive again. The USTA self ranking system indicates I’m a 3.5 and could appeal up to a 4.0 but I’m hopeful I can play to level 5 again within a couple of years and, like I said, enter and compete with better players. My motivation for tennis is playing tournaments again, with the opportunity of playing and testing myself against the best players in the region but it seems the USTA wants to put everyone in boxes. I don’t think that’s the best way to test yourself, learn and improve.
Hi can you tell me what 6.5 UTR is in USTA?
@@marcodeluca4068between a 4.0 and 4.5
I’ve been playing USTA and captaining USTA teams for 10 years now. A big issue that you did not mention in your video is how people lose on purpose a.k.a. “Sandbaggers” and nothing is being done about it. I know guys for years who only lose to make it to sectionals and nationals just so they can win. Couldn’t agree with you more.
In regards to UTR, I definitely think scoreline matters. The UTR algorithm is more nuanced than you made it out to be, actually predicting scores down to the game level based on past results. I think that getting credit for a close match, if past results indicate the match should be a anything less, is productive and fair because then players are incentivized more to play to develop rather than just play to win. When players are rewarded in a tangible way for more than just winning that can only be a good thing. And at least in SoCal, the issue of players not playing tournaments for fear of negatively impacting their UTR is actually a very real one. I have a lot of friends who play high level junior tennis (UTR 10-12) and they have made it clear that players who used to show up at every tournament are more selective now, choosing those they think they are more likely to win, as they want their UTR’s to stay high to impress for college recruitment. That being said, I don’t think that is a huge issue for recreational adult play, unless your ego is so massive you care more about a number than playing tennis.
That's if you're trying to calculate UTR off a single match. But when you have enough matches, the exact number of games won (as opposed to sets won & lost) doesn't make a big difference to accuracy & could actually make it less accurate. In tennis, you can lose more games & still win more sets & win the match, so number of sets won & lost should override the number of games won or lost, at least for the winner, at least in such cases. In fact, whichever will have a more positive effect on UTR or less negative effect (sets or games) should be used. That way, there is less pressure to win X number of games just to prevent a drop in UTR, as you can just settle for winning or losing the expected number of sets if you prefer.
Another change I'd suggest is that instead of being the last 30 matches within 12 months, it should be the 10 most recent matches on hard court within months + the 10 most recent matches on clay within 12 months + the 10 most recent matches on grass (excluding expected wins) in the last 12 months, that way player's ratings won't jump around so much just from the changing of surfaces.
I am growing to completely dislike USTA and wanting to never play it again! I have far more fun just playing local players for fun and free!
I feel the same too
@@thomasnguyen7934 Could it be the loss of players in USTA is because many have recognized that it's a very rigged and frustrating platform?
@@edwardstilwell9252 I know a friend of mine 4.5 he quit USTA long time ago and just hit locally for fun and exercise because people can lie. A guy claimed he was 4.0 but reality was he’s only 2.0 … my friend didn’t like that… LOL.
I just joined a league for a captain asked me but I don’t think I’ll renew my membership. Won’t give them my money.
@@thomasnguyen7934 This will be my last season with USTA
Me too!
While I agree that a win is the ultimate judge, I think that there should be room in the process for score consideration. There is a dramatic difference between a 6-0, 6-0 victory and a 7-6, 7-6 victory as you welll know. It shouldn't be a large portion of the rating....but it should be present. As far as the USTA goes, it would be great if they actually pretended to give a shit about making their stuff better. The NTRP is shit and everyone knows it.
Perfect analogy!!!
"There is a dramatic difference between a 6-0, 6-0 victory and a 7-6, 7-6 victory as you well know"
There can be, but sometimes the difference is just that the guy who wins 6-0 is meaner, and the guy who wins 6-3 6-4 against similar players is being a nice guy, taking it easy, and having some fun with some longer rallies. And in tennis, you can lose more games & still win more sets & win the match, so number of sets won & lost should override the number of games won or lost, at least for the winner, at least in such cases. In fact, whichever will have a more positive effect on UTR or less negative effect (sets or games) should be used. That way, there is less pressure to win X number of games just to prevent a drop in UTR, as you can just settle for winning or losing the expected number of sets if you prefer.
Another change I'd suggest is that instead of being the last 30 matches within 12 months, it should be the 10 most recent matches on hard court within months + the 10 most recent matches on clay within 12 months + the 10 most recent matches on grass (excluding expected wins) in the last 12 months, that way player's ratings won't jump around so much just from the changing of surfaces.
Great insight, well executed points, and 'Afterthotts' is what makes me subscribe XD What is wrong with me. Great video Mark!
I think your analysis is spot on. From the ET interview, I thought it was very interesting that the USTA seems to look at the ratings as kind of a byproduct of their leagues, like the focus is to make compelling league play and the ratings help them do that, but they're not really intended to stand on their own as indicative as much. This obviously isn't how they're used in the real world or even how they're marketed on the USTA site, but it does provide some context as to why they're so bad as standalone skill ratings.
I want to love UTR, because it's the closest thing we have to chess Elo, but as you pointed out the match score affects the rating change which makes it not a true Elo score. Such a foolish choice makes it nearly as bad as NTRP in my eyes.
Def would be interested in your play your court thoughts! Our bros (Scott and Nate) in our tennis group down here do that. Keep your review vid unfiltered too tho! 💪🏽
YEEEEEEEEEEE
Nice video. Played usta 4.0 in new england and 2/4 players i played we’re below 4.0. Played 2 utr 6 and up and was grouped similar ratings +\- 1.5 and all of my matches were very competitive. I like utr better bc i definitely played players that were at my level or slightly better. Thanks for video
I played usta league and tournaments from 1991 to 1996. Completely agree with you about it. Im retired from high tech, you nailed it about their website. I would consider ot bad for 2005
yes, please also review the other tennis rating and give us your thoughts and best rating of all.
i'm tired of people ragging on Donald Young. He made a nice career for himself, and like Venus and Naomi Osaka would point out, he's better than 99% of us out there!
Something tells me that your actually Donald Young 😂🤣
I agree with Mark. Scoreline is not important.
What if:
- You force yourself to play eventhough you're still injured. And won 7-6 again ntrp 3.0.
- You're clowning around against weak opponent. Won 7-6.
- Not in the mood. But still won with slim margin.
Too many factors to consider about the scoreline.
Great subject and well covered. I would disagree that a 6-0,6-0 result is the same as a 7-6, 7-6 result. In a one off tourney those results are in fact identical, but not the way the UTR system broadly interprets results for the far more precise output number. When travel was a thing, i happened to play a competitive player from Finland, we were at 6-6 in games before our court time expired. I later checked his UTR, we were within a .1 UTR rating from each other. i became quite impressed with the system. Keep up the great work Mark.
I do think the score matter, and I fail to see why big server being an advantage has any link on why the score shouldn't matter?
I think the logic is that if score matters then the more free points you get per match then the more your rating would be pumped up.
@@donkeybro6368 true but it's normal because the serves is part of the game. If you are an amazing returner, you will be able to break more Ave still win. Of course there's more Zverev vthan shwartzman but each skill matter
@@pzh1 Yes I agree that scores or key stats should matter since they would reflect how consistent / hard to beat you are. I was just explaining the logic behind.
5:49 we have Korda tho 🥺
last american left. sad they drop like flies
hope for the best
Plus Czech mentality and culture.
Regardless of which system is used, there are only a few tournaments per year around here. If I wanted to play a tournament per month, I have to be willing to go over 100 miles each way. At 100 mile limit, there are literally 2 tournaments (May and July) in this area this year.
Few things...first, you couldn't be more right about the USTA Tennis Link site. It is a joke. I wonder how much money they have spent to come up with that!
Second, the biggest issue I've found with NTRP is that the comparisons between regions is terrible. The most obvious thing I've seen is how we've had a few teams from the OKC area qualify for 4.0 Nationals, we are never competitive, and yet most of the team gets moved up to 4.5. If the very best 4.0 players in OKC have no chance at Nationals, why are we bumped up? It makes zero sense.
Finally, the self rating is horrible. You pretty much nailed this.
Just joined a UTR flex league in my area, not bad for $35. 5 matches over he span of 4 weeks for the price of a USTA tourney entry fee. UTR isn’t as popular in my area though so not as many players there typically are compared to the USTA events.
I don't think I personally know anyone with a UTR. At least, nobody has ever mentioned it, but the majority of my tennis buddies have an NTPR for league play. UTR has not gained much traction in my area, and I have no idea how to go about getting rated.
@@rbraxley anyone who has USTA (NTRP) results automatically has a UTR rating regardless if they have “claimed” their UTR profile or not. You can get a UTR by playing either USTA or UTR results or even import results from unofficial ladder matches if both you and the opponent agree to.
@@richieortiz5 Interesting, and thanks for the info. So, I have a UTR based upon my league play. Who knew (obviously you)?
very interesting, i just signed up for my first UTR league locally. wasn't even aware of how these systems differ. Interested to see PYC review since it seems to be getting more popular given their ads and content
The USTA has recently announced that they are looking into the WTN rating system for juniors which is basically a copy of the UTR system. The only downside for the UTR system in the junior level is that there is no mechanism for sanctioning cheaters or inappropriate behavior. Overall though, the UTR is a superior system.
Unfortunately, there really is no way to account for cheaters at any level that does not have at least a chair umpire on court at all times. At all levels except for Pro and top college, matches go by the honor system thus making unfairness such as bad line calls undetectable by any rating system.
Data nerds love to incorporate as much data as possible so I see why they include the scoreline, there's a ranking system in volleyball that does that too. However I can see it being misleading. Just because you pushed John Isner or Ivo Karlovic to a tie-break doesn't mean you had any chance of beating them. But you've convinced me, I think I'm going to sign up for UTR.
2 points: A) UTR needs to find a way to become more user friendly for less than $99/year. About the ONLY thing you can see about you, your friends or opponents is YOUR own 3 digit UTR. Can only see other players single digit UTR number, not ratings history, past results, 3 digit rating. UTR needs to seek corporate sponsorship and/or advertisements. Imagine if Twitter, Instagram or Facebook 10 years ago had an AWESOME product that people needed and craved around the world, but charged $99/year to get started? You would still never heard of them! Currently only ONE person in the Philippines has even heard of UTR, NOBODY uses it. $99 is like a couple of months rent!!!! B) Final score of he match gives some insight into the strength of both players, getting a win matters more, BOTH are used with UTR. What is worthy of arguing is whether UTR weighs score too heavily. I am far from convinced it does. I would have to understand their algorithm more to form a strong opinion. PS: UTR PLEASE let players use your system for FREE, see the value and put the nail in the NTRP coffin!!!!
Thank you, Mark! I very much agree that the USTA website is embarrassing and hard to navigate in almost all respects. The NTRP system is terrible as well. Come on, USTA, make it easy for players to schedule matches with others at any venue and record results that affect their ratings immediately. - John F., Chandler Tennis Meetup Organizer
For me, the amount of "weight" given to the scoreline is ridiculous. If I am playing a tournament and draw an easy opponent, I am going to try to manage my energy output in order to comfortably win the match whilst conserving stamina.
I am not going balls-to-wall to crush someone love & love, only to be more tired for my next match that starts in one hour.
If you are better enough to win love and love then you shouldn't need to go balls to the wall to win. That is you being better enough that they cant even win one in six service games when they are getting lucky. I agree that it is silly to have such a large emphasis on the scoreline because at the end of the day it overly favors a style of play that is actually detrimental to development (in my opinion), but everyone has had those matches where you are just like "how did I end up on the court with this guy" and having the system over represent results like that causes a faster seperation of players into their "correct" level.
@@peterranney9488 I definitely agree with the first half of your comment. Out of curiosity, what style are you referring to that's "detrimental to development"?
@@johnnybgood1169 Over emphasis on serve and return of serve leads to major plateaus in development where far fewer of your matches will be competitive so it will be much harder to get the competitive tennis necessary to improve mentally. It also de-emphasizes mental toughness and fitness which you need in proportion to point length. It is always really frustrating when I play with people who have over-emphasized that part of their game and the match is just never competitive one way or the other.
Good video, and agree with the most part, except the score line: i am in the tennis industry for over 40 years, come from France, brought Naomi Osaka one of the best junior in the world. I do think as a coach and former player than loosing 0/6-0/6 is not the same than 5/7-5/7 and you do deserve some credit! It shows on the second exemple the match and level was pretty close match! In France we have this system for 80 years!! LOL
But you have to keep your ranking for 12 months, and the algorithm is calculate with some prediction, depending on your opponents values (if they rise or will gogo down)
Love the passion in the vid bro! USTA is 💩 crazy I remember back in the early 2000s working with Dave Howell at a club down here in the 757 when he was just starting to develop the UTR system. I never imagined it’d get this global, but props to Dave on it!
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Well said Mark!
Mark, 严重同意✅！
I agree with many of your comments, but I disagree with your disbelief that the expected result for an NTRP 3.5 at 3.49 vs 3.00 would be a double bagel. NTRP 3.5 people I know who won too much then got bumped up to 4.0 regularly get thrashed even by average players in the new bucket (i.e., players who are probably in the 3.75 range), and they definitely eat a lot of bagels and breadsticks against the better 4.0s (i.e., ones who are closer to 3.99). This anecdotal evidence is not as extreme as the hypothetical scenario of a 3.49 vs a 3.00, so a double bagel sounds like a good estimate to me for that match result.
This talent gap issue can probably be explained in large part by the asymmetry of the bucket's bell curve at the high end -- the tail at the high end is full of players who have appealed to get their ratings pushed back down to the lower bucket specifically because they want to be able to play in the lowest possible league to create teams that will win their USTA regional, sectional, etc playoffs. Perhaps one of the main reasons the USTA won't publish the YY portion of our internal X.YY rating is that we'd see there are a bunch of players above 3.49 who are currently assigned to the NTRP 3.5 bucket. If my suspicion is true, then USTA's Heather Hawkes' statement about double bagels is even more believable than my original premise if the top of the NTRP 3.5 bucket is actually above 3.49, and might be pitting say a 3.65 player against a 3.00.
One sub-topic that you intentionally or unintentionally overlooked is the ratings info provided at tennisrecord.com (I believe they were briefly discussed in Essential Tennis' interview with Heather Hawkes). Tennis Record attempts to apply what they believe is USTA's algorithm to matches, then to report the per-match dynamic rating like UTR does. FWIW, Tennis Record consistently rates me above 3.00 overall and per match despite USTA recently downgrading my self-rated 3.5 to 3.0 (i.e., Tennis Record says I'm a 3.20 playing as an NTRP 3.0). UTR says I'm a 5.17 based upon the same match results. Also FWIW, I self-rated as a 3.5 because I mostly play against 3.5's and 4.0s, and I can generally hold my own against all but those 3.5 players who just got bumped to 4.0 in the USTA year-end ratings update.
I'd be interested in an addendum that adds your thoughts on tennisrecord.com. It might actually provide the best of all worlds in that we get UTR-like dynamic ratings to .01 granularity, but we can continue to use the USTA league infrastructure.
P.S. All of my official ratings info is based upon mixed doubles results, whereas my comments about playing against 3.5-4.0 players is mostly singles. I'm a much better singles than doubles player, plus I'm guessing that the algorithms become less accurate when trying to factor in the relative contributions of each player in a doubles team.
1. UTR You can't play who want you have to be same ranked to your opponent
2. In UTR why is there only one set to play for each match
3. UTR if your opponent doesn't show up you automatically win that match?
4.What do you mean the rating (UTR) favors regular players?
5. But doesn't your rating decrease when you lose to a lower ranking player or stays the same if he or she has equal ranking and you win?
5:08 spot on Mark, the new technology cannot even filter section rankings, an excel download option would be better.
Starting this video now but right off the bat, I suspect that as someone over 20 years out of high school, your critiques mostly won't apply to me, and while an imperfect system, the ntrp likely hasn't failed me as an adult 3.5. let's see if I'm right!
I think... some apply (though you are right, definitely not all).
Yeah, I think after watching the video, I see where it lets people down who are trying to get into competitive league play and finding that's it's all compressed into a super 4.0 and a super duper 4.5 league.
Good video but I liked the rating clinics. I got a very accurate rating this way when I started and the raters wee not fat and they did a good job. UTR seems to be a better system but has its flaws as well. For example, high rated juniors not playing back draws to protect their UTR rating. The 10cap system looks interesting.
In tennis, you can lose more games & still win more sets & win the match, so number of sets won & lost should override the number of games won or lost, at least for the winner, at least in such cases. In fact, whichever will have a more positive effect on UTR or less negative effect (sets or games) should be used. That way, there is less pressure to win X number of games just to prevent a drop in UTR, as you can just settle for winning or losing the expected number of sets if you prefer.
Another change I'd suggest is that instead of being the last 30 matches within 12 months, it should be the 10 most recent matches on hard court within months + the 10 most recent matches on clay within 12 months + the 10 most recent matches on grass (excluding expected wins) in the last 12 months, that way player's ratings won't jump around so much just from the changing of surfaces.
Great analysis and appreciate the disgust for the NTRP system! On several occasions, I have been paired with a singles specialist for a doubles match who had no business playing doubles at that rating. When this happens, I realize I may be in for a long day. Also, does the NTRP system place a higher value to actual vs. expected score or winning vs. losing? Athletes train to improve and prepare themselves to perform and win, not prepare to beat the expectations. I personally would prefer to have a teammate that can win consistently vs. a player who hammers weak opposition or wins less bad against stronger players.
The flawed self-rating system is ripe with players overrating themselves at higher NTRP ratings
Thats why I made the comment about a win is a win, no matter if its 6-0,6-0 or 7-5, 6-7, 7-6.
I have no idea of the NTRP system places a higher value for expectations vs reality.
Your preaching to the choir good sir!! I don't know anything about the UTR ratings, but I understand that an even more dismal downer about NTRP is that we are constantly told that only spring leagues apply to your rating. So Tankers will throw matches in the Spring and play normal throughout the rest of the season. If rankings/ratings were posted immediately it will create transparency. There will be no throwing matches because you will immediately be dropped in the rankings as to who you really are as a player. I personally dropped my USTA membership for these reasons and others. I joined a local club and get all the tennis I really need. USTA is raking in the dough while sticking it to the members. I hear others complain all the time, but they are unwilling to take a stance which seems to be the cultural norm or the USA at this time. On another note, yes, their website SUCKS!! Most un-intuitive piece of garbage out there. How do you find anything you are looking for unless you were the right handed, left brain nitwit who designed the website. Take a que from apple and how easy it is to navigate through menus on an iphone, it will lend you credibility and ease of use for your customer base. nuff said.. signed 52 yr old 4.0 rated NTRP who plays 4.5 level doubles.
Hey man where are you located? I could not agree with you more. I am the same age as you and played numerous USTA junior tournaments for years. Four year Kalamazoo player. One thing that I think is abysmal that the USTA has in place with there junior tournaments is the scoring format This 10 pt tiebreak thing for the third set is making the United States overall weaker as a whole for our nations tennis. When I played we played full third sets. Now you literally have to play in the main draw of a level one supranational to play a full third set in United States national junior tennis. When I was 9 years old I was playing full third sets in local junior open tournaments in my first ever tournament. Now juniors might play there entire career and never play a full third set in there life. This is the most ridiculous, absurd thing that is an embarrassment to our nation. It makes it so if you want to be a professional the only way you can do it is play the ITF tour and travel the world. Some people choose to go to public school and can only do the USTA national Junior Circuit and it is those kids that I feel for because the USTA is not doing them shit. 10pt tiebreaks just make matches more of a crapshoot and change the feeling of the whole match entirely from the first point.
I’m in Milwaukee!
@@MarkSansait I agree with many of your statements
Here is my opinion on this after watching the video. Yes both systems have issues, but I agree with the USTA reason on why they purposely keep NTRP vague. This encourages more play. Like other have said, there are players who avoid playing certain matches solely due to the other person UTR. UTR might be too good at rating people so you can pretty much tell who will win without even playing the match. The other issue with UTR is if you got someone who only plays player lower than them. This might be because they don't travel or participate in high level tournaments. Base on UTR the highest they can obtain is the highest opponent they beat with a valid UTR rating. Again this makes sense, but they should be ranked much higher. Again this is the edge cases, but it can happen. Finally on your comment about UTR should us win vs set score, it is more data for them to accurately gauge how they will perform. Yes it might bias big servers or specific technique such as serve volley or certain surfaces. Like you said, it is meant to be universal, applying to many surfaces and game play type. But I do agree there are room for improvement such as surface type win and biasing techniques and such, but then you would need a lot more data and maybe even something to observe and determine the play technique used to win. That system would be on a whole new level.
I’m not a fan of the NTRP. I had a few good years around 2004 to 2010 and found myself stuck at 5.0. I went 2-15 in 2012 (2-5 league play) and my appeal was denied. I had to quit playing for 7 years, then self rated according to the player guidelines as 4.5. That was rejected and they put me at 5.0. Finally came back down for 2020 season. I’m almost 48 years old. Moral of the story, play hard, train hard, and you are rewarded with a shrinking field of competitors and you have to quit to re-join your buddies.
But what do you really think, Mark? Nice analysis, and I agree, NTRP is in need of a major overhaul. It may have been useful in 1978, but not so much any more. ALTA manages to run a very successful league system that has nothing to do with NTRP, so while NTRP does help with league structure, it's clearly not the only approach. Maybe the USTA just needs to bite the bullet and adapt UTR as the system.
Great video!
Man, every since I started tennis more seriously, I was disappointed of the USTA website and their ratings. I truly believe that they should listen to this very informative video and make some changes. You are not the only one I have talked about this. USTA don’t be blockbuster!!!!! Wake upppppp!!!
In the Dutch system, only the win and loss counts, the score doesn't. I can see my rating up to 3 decimals and the rating goes from 9 to 1 (lowest to highest 1). My rating is updated after a playing day or at the end of a tournament. I can play against higher level players as well as lower rated players. In tournaments the organizers can however limit this and put you in a different league. If they do so they do have a legitimate reason for it and generally communicate with the player about it.
The rating system is fairly easy. If you win a match you get a match result that is your opponents current rating including decimals minus 1 and this counts only if that result is higher than yours. If you lose the opponents rating +1. Your own rating is the average of your last 7 matches results rolling
No system is perfect
fucking love UTR. So sad they dont have it in Japan since I moved here. I even emailed UTR asking if they have it here and they said no but they'd like to 😞
USTA website is horrible. They should be embarrass. No wonder, American tennis is losing ground in many aspects. USTA have gotten fat and lazy. I agreed with everything you said about USTA.
So the whole system if that’s what you want to call it is simply horrible but maybe I can shed some light to this what is the a conversion table between USTA and UTR?
I played chess tournaments in the 1970's. About 1974, in Missouri, some tournament organizers asked players if they wanted trophies or cash. We all said, give us the money.
I can't pay my drug dealer with second place trophies.
Mark, wait until you turn 40, you won’t say the USTA league play is good. They just cut the singles line from 2 to 1 (40+ league). People in my team were already fighting to get a chance to play singles for the team when there were 2. This totally sucks! Not sure the logic behind this. Less people required to form a team -> More teams -> more money???
I am a 4.5 with a horrible UTR 😭
Utr is vastly better. Unlike the vastly inaccurate ntrp rating. We all know that 3.0 player is truly 4.0 or worse destroying people on the court. Just finished a utr flex league. It was fun and competitive. My opponents were truly fair at the stated level
I recently signed up for UTR to see what's all this about. I am not going to talk about their shitty website and other issues. I see USTA as a money grabbing scheme. They don't do a squat to improve the game in US.
That said, here is my take only their rating system. UTR is fine. It is all about current form because it keeps changing every match. A 4.0 NTRP player ranked 6.0 or 7.0 in UTR can come down significantly if few results don't go their way. Doesn't mean 4.0 player all of a sudden becomes a 3.5. I prefer NTRP's rating to assess a player overall. It's much more stable. In sports, we have a saying, "Class is permanent than form". NTRP is about class. UTR is abt form.
Ultimately I don't see either of them doing anything to improve tennis in US. They don't care to improve court availability for aspiring professionals or recreational players. It's no wonder american tennis is suffering big time.
Hey Mark! I've only been playing a little over 2 yrs (including a long Covid break.), so I just came into this relatively recently with no bias or old preconceived ideas/opinions. I got sucked into this debate when my 12yo son 1st started playing, and my "fresh set of eyes" came to the same conclusion you did - the comparison really isn't close! I will disagree with you on 1 point though: I do believe the score line matters in this context. Primarily since we can't play ALL UTR players head-to-head. If you were to beat me 6-0, 6-0, I do think that should be treated differently than beating Ian or Angry Old Man 6-0. 6-0.
Hi, so this is probably a dumb question, but can I play in USTA tournaments only for college recruitment? Like does my USTA rating affect my UTR rating? Thank you!
I think the NTRP is definitely lacking with rating new players but there is really not a better way as I can see. Sure, you can go out and "Play matches" but you could play someone and get crushed in 30 minutes. Thats not fun for either person. At least NTRP gives you a base to go off of by answering the questions and then bumps you up or down based off of your results.
I also think the score line does matter. If you lose all of your matches 6-7 6-7, you deserve to stay at that level. If you lose all of your matches 0 and 0 you should be bumped down. So winning is not the only thing that matters.
Their website is actually atrocious and I feel is worse than their previous site. Its complicated to navigate and just is not user friendly.
Another problem with NTRP is, I am getting this from Ians interview with the NTRP representative, is that they hire non-tennis people to be representatives in the area. I mean how is she supposed to give insight to the higher ups about improving NTRP. After she said she doesn't have a tennis background, everything she defended or talked about lost value. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Feedback for your video - I think you should have said you are affiliated with UTR at the beginning of the video and not the end. But, at least you disclosed that.
With all of that being said, still an interesting video and seeing your take on it. Interested to see you review play your court. I am not familiar with Rally tennis even though I see ads for it.
100% agree
I'm a fan of UTR in theory. Unfortunately, many players around my area show up with a rating of 2. Predictions and therefore corrections (the basis of UTR) are subsequently crap. They do try to improve that with a "confidence" -- hopefully factored into the equations somewhere -- but it doesn't seem to work well in my opinion.
Bottom line: we - the tennis community- deserve a system that accurately reflects the demonstrated ability of every player. The system should be transparent and easy to understand (what are the variables inherent to the rating, and how are they weighted?). The system also needs to be dynamic to eliminate any latency-driven bias (up or down). #KeepTheConversationGoing
What drives me crazy about the USTA's website is that there are tournaments being held every month that I would love to take part in and yet they're never posted on the USTA's website. I don't play league tennis so I can't comment about the structuring of the leagues.
But I REALLY wish they would put up the non-sanctioned tournaments on their website.
I know of atleast 3 non-sanctioned events (in my state alone) that aren't included on the USTA's website.
I’ve got Like no rating bc I’m out of shape and don’t play tournaments but I can beat 5.0 players in my area so I’m hoping to get in shape and improve quickly
Facts
In terms of calculating a players actual level, UTR is superior without a doubt and is honestly just a successor to NTRP. I don't really think I have met anyone that actually thinks NTRP is better than UTR in that sense because that would be insane.
The gender neutrality in UTR is not accurate. For example, an 11 UTR girl is very different from an 11 UTR male. It is very difficult at that level to determine what the accurate UTR of a girl is because any girl thats above a 9 UTR is essentially never playing a guy that is 9 UTR or above in tournaments. There are co-ed tournaments but those are usually for lower levels (like 7 UTR or below), so the calculation becomes inaccurate at higher levels. An 11/12 UTR guy would absolutely murder an 11/12 UTR girl.
Regarding your scoreline comment, I think you saying the scoreline doesn't matter is a little silly tbh. 7-6 7-6 is very different from 6-0 6-0 and its naive to not acknowledge that. Perhaps there should be more weight given to wins and losses rather than just counting the games, but the score is definitely relevant and adds to the predictive accuracy of the UTR system. If you took that factor away and only factored in wins/losses, the predictive accuracy of UTR would go down drastically. This counting games factor also encourages players to try on every point.
I also don't really understand your point about favoring big servers.. If you have a big serve and win games on your serve, then you would be more likely to win games/sets/matches obviously, the serve is a pretty important shot in tennis. With that logic, It also favors good returners, players with good forehands, etc.. as it should... so what's your point?
I also disagree about it "favoring regular players". Your UTR rating only becomes more accurate when you have played more matches. There are just as many scenarios in which it would actually favor the non-regular player. For example, if you play 1 match against a 13 UTR and win 1 game, your estimated UTR would be like an 11 even though you might actually be a 9 UTR. In that scenario, it would be "favoring" the player that played only 1 match. The same could go the other way around.
tomic is the 🐐 6:42
I think any cap on ratings is a mistake. It will mean everyone’s rating must be reshuffled depending on how good the best player is.
I also have heard the utr seems to shift players ratings around with no apparent reason. There may be reasons but the system is not transparent enough for players to know why this happens. This lack of transparency means the system lacks credibility. Also games only counting for one year is awfully short. Their k factor is geared toward young players not adults. I suspect ntrp dynamic rating are better at predicting results for adults.
Chess has some excellent rating systems.
The reason utr consider how many games you win and not just the match result is because it is more data. More data often means better predictions.
I would love to hear what you think of play my courts system. I live in central illinois and it is hard to find utr or ntrp rated match play. But I can find play your court matches. I just don’t know much about their rating system.
I think all rating systems should cap out at 69!
#nice
Ratings should be based on did you win or did you lose plus the rating of your opponent.
When I played chess tournaments in the 1970's, I could accurately calculate my new ELO rating after a tournament using simple arithmetic.
Later on, playing tennis, my rating was bumped from 4.0 to 4.5. I became rated 4.0 at age 40, after my first tournament as a self rated 3.5.
I was typically reaching the 3rd round in 4.0 events. Not exactly destroying the competition. I had no idea why I became a 4.5 player. After being moved up, I foolishly played 4.5 events for 5 years, never beating even one 4.5 rated opponent. I beat a couple 4.0 players playing up. How could I maintain a 4.5 rating for 5 years without beating even one 4.5 player?
I had earlier been a very active player.
I had been rated 4.0 at age 42. It took until age 47 for me to return to a 4.0 rating. By that time, I was no longer interested in tournament play.
I was canceled.
In all honesty, I would LOVE to sit down with someone that knows this system (if that someone even exists) to explain what happened to you logically.
I am sorry that this happened to you.
Agree about USTA website.
😡 ik right?
I think she’s totally right about showing the 1/100ths…it would create a storm of backlash for them with people whining about the smallest differences over a .5 rating. Honestly man, I think your just trying to produce content way too hard and creating these hit piece videos on everything. ET has such a good presence and following because Ian is professional. Hope things go well for you in the YT game but I’d encourage you to take another approach.
I agree with you that ET's style will likely have a bigger audience, but I respectfully disagree about the "trying too hard" comments. Ian is non-confrontational and positive, and Mark is more direct and opinionated.
Both have their merits and attract different crowds. When I want to compare something (e.g. UTRP vs UTR in this case), I like these types of opinion videos, and enjoy watching counter opinions too.
I thought you have to pay for the subscription in order to see the decimal point ranking? I tried to look at rankings right now but could only see it rounded.
you have to pay to see other players' 2 decimal point ratings. You can see yours for free
I'd like to support UTR more but when I look at levels sometimes they don't make sense to me. I've played folks who live 4 hours away from me and they are UTR 2-3 points better than me but in reality I was at their level but NTRP wise we are the same. In my home town, UTR and NTRP line up better. So I'm confused.
UTR is not superior for league play based on teams. UTR does not solve any problems for team based league play. Even Ian's issue was predicated on joining a league play team. UTR does not promote getting the highest rating possible in team based league play. Self rating and sandbagging will be a problem with either NTRP or UTR. No matter what system you use there has to be buckets of level and stable cohesive teams.
It seems to me that league play is a top priority. I would guess that it involves the most players and brings in the most money.
I'll agree that UTR is good for individuals in competitions or tournaments. I'll agree that the USTA website is garbage...although that really has nothing directly to do with NTRP vs UTR..
I think the score of any individual match is a faulty way to judge a dynamic rating. You may be able to produce an algorithm that could identify trends in aggregate score data. However, and individual match score is a guessing game.
So as a regional UTR tournament representative, do you feel like your opinions here reflect any bias?
Also, I disagree with your statement that competitiveness in match scoring should not factor into the UTR algorithm. If I beat you 10 times in a row 6-0, 6-0 vs 10 times in a row 7-6, 6-7, 10-8 (ST), it's far more likely that our UTR"s should be nearly identical in the second scenario than the first.
By nature I am biased because I am an independent contractor with UTR.
As for the scoring... In my opinion a win is a win (or lose), no matter how close a match is.
@@MarkSansait Yes, I know. You mentioned that in the video. I'm not sure you looked at the example I gave. If I beat you 10 times in a row 6-0, 6-0, I am very likely a higher UTR by at least 1 full level. If I beat you 10 times in a row 7-6, 6-7, 10-8 (Su.T), while I should still be a higher UTR than you, the difference falls within the "competitive threshold", and should be only fractionally higher. Believe me, college coaches want to know if a rounded UTR 10 is closer to a 10.5 than a 9.5.
@@MarkSansait wow i have never thought you would be bias
@@BullyGarfield. Bias lessens the value of someone's opinion in the area where the bias exists. (Even though when it comes to this topic, I also believe UTR is a superior rating system/algorithm.)
Also sadly related to the USTA rating, there a BUNCH of players down here that put way too much value in their or their opponent’s NTRP… and go into matches shaking in their boots bc someone is a WHOLE 0.01 points higher than him… smh
a WHOLE .01? 😲
WTH doesn't UTR have an app for Android, though? It's my only complaint, but it's a significant one in my mind.
Honesty I think they are working on it.
USTA simply can't arrange tournaments where 80%+ of the matches aren't blowouts.
Why do you come out with a video on such an important topic and don't answer comments
It took 5 weeks to get my rating appeal. It's extremely frustrating.
USTA
This whole video could be summed up in two words: good take.
@@MarkSansait no problem! Utr is certainly the future. Especially for those who play internationally like you said so I can’t agree more that ntrp is antiquated.
To all of you, "SIZE of victory" measuring contest bro's out there...
As of this post, Nadal's UTR is higher than Djokovic's. I surmise that this has to do with the margin(SIZE) of victories of recent matches. Nadal had won his matches in straight sets, where Djokovic had two recent 5 set victories.
Be honest with yourself, right now on grass, clay, or hard court, is Nadal better than Djokovic.
Ummm unbiased opinion but I work for the competition...C'mon Mark. Sorry you lost me.
USTA league can feel like an extension of the youth sports money grab, but more focused. I support the overall USTA mission, love tennis, and can afford regular play, so I’m the demographic in play. Match fees guarantee clubs income and there are enough people who will willingly pay to travel and play in a “national championship,” for some non-existent bragging rights. If you want to play with your friends, have fun, and compete, great, do it. If you want to travel, get your group together and take a tennis vacation.
🙏
If you're going to research other systems I would research the French system I think the French people really like it and UTR took many ideas from it.
I REALLY REALYL want to go to Europe and take a look at their systems.
UTR is a rip off of the Elo rating system from chess.
My utr is 2. Better look out.
UTR is actually 1 to 16.5
Shows my UTR as a beginner. That’s in no way accurate. I’m not seeing it.
Because you have to build your UTR over time. It takes playing a lot of matches to get a number that reflects your actual level. Remember, UTR is intended for competitive players, specifically at the high junior level, who play just about 2-3 competitive tournament matches per week.
mark, can you add me to your team. Thanks
1 dislike, from the USTA
Under a minute
lol DY